Re: Testing

Thanks, Shadi -- no problem, and very helpful.

Forgive the extra layer of comments below, but
I think they make more sense in context.

On Sun, 03 May 2009 16:29:50 +0200
  Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Sorry for the late response, please find some comments 
>below:
> 
> 
> Thomas Jewett wrote:
>> Hi, Shadi --
>> 
>> Thinking about doing some sort of an evaluation report,
>> I posted my paper for HCII, which talks about what we've
>> been doing here over the past few years.
>>  
>> [@@@removed@@@]
> 
> Neat paper, a real interesting read! Looking forward to 
>this presentation in July...

Thanks, likewise for yours and all of them. Since I'm 
following
Jon in the order, I'm going to emphasize how a human look
can compliment the tools he's developed.

  
>> It's not linked from anywhere, partially because it's in
>> non-accessible pdf as required by the conference, and
>> partially because I can't remember what the Springer
>> copyright allows.
> 
> Uhm, now it *is* linked. Remember, this mailing list is 
>publicly archived! Please make sure you are OK with this.

Oh, yeah, forgot about that -- don't see a problem, 
though.
If the publisher complains, we'll just delete it.

(snip...)
> 
> The principle idea is the approach that we tried to take 
>in the current report [1]. If you look carefully, you 
>will see that it follows the WAI "Template for 
>Accessibility Evaluation Reports" [2], which is part of 
>the WAI "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" suite 
>[3]:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report/>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/template>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/>
> 
> However, developing such an elaborate evaluation report 
>is very tough. During the last teleconference call we 
>discussed providing the results only, rather than the 
>full report. This would be roughly section 4 of the 
>current report:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report/#results>

I can see using the success criteria in much the same
format, but if I've counted correctly, there are 60 of
them. Many will be n/a, but still would be daunting to
many folks at first look.


> Note: we plan to update the entire evaluation suite 
>(possibly to have more detailed evaluation guidance) for 
>WCAG 2.0 but that is a separate project to BAD.

This is the effort that I was thiking about in one of
our phone calls. Looking at the whole suite carefully,
I'm realizing what a balancing act it will take to
provide both the thoroughness that is needed at the
W3C level and "accessibility" to the material that
many web developer can comprehend and apply.

Tom

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 03:39:01 UTC